Fun Stuff (as if you haven't wasted enough time)

Disclaimer

Unless they are attributed to someone else, the opinions posted on this blog are Jeff Weintraub's (the blog's creator and sole proprietor, pictured above) and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer, clients, family, friends or anyone else who might even be remotely associated with him, wittingly or unwittingly. In short, don't blame others for Jeff's crazy ideas, which he conjures up on his own.

Calls to Action

YachadSupport needed community development and home repair in the D.C. area.

Interfaith Youth CoreSupport young people as they strengthen their religious identities, foster inter-religious understanding and serve community.

Memorable NPR Stories

Become a Fan

PLEASE HELP me out with something. Someone explain to me why there is so much puzzlement that the Israeli government would object to the unity arrangement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Why is this so hard to understand?

In today's Washington Post, for example, former President Jimmy Carter hails the unity accord as something that will somehow solve all the problems of the terrible and protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflice. Through a system of checks and balances, he seems to imply, the combined PA and Hamas regime will "lead to a durable cease-fire" with Israel, captured Israeli prisoners of war such as Galid Shalit will be returned home, Hamas will recognize Israel's right to exist. And so on.

"Suspicions of Hamas," Carter writes, "stem from its charter, which calls for Israel's destruction. I find the charter repugnant. Yet it is worth remembering that Israel negotiated the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Liberation Organization while its charter had similar provisions. It took five more years before the PLO Charter was altered."

No, suspicions of Hamas stem from more than just the charter; there is also Hamas's bad habit of killing innocent people -- not just Israelis but any Palestinians who disagree with it. The charter, which so many critics of Israel often dismiss as nothing to be worried about, is only a statement in words of what Hamas is all about in deeds (which is why the charter really does matter). And Hamas has made it clear over and over - via actions and words - that it would like to kill Israelis and eliminate the State of Israel.

Also, while I was a hopeful supporter of the Oslo Accords, it's hard even for me and others like me to say that it led to an idyllic future (though we probably have a lot more to work with today than we did before the Accords). Even under Yasser Arafat's watch as the head of the PA, there were repeated murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Israel proper. Either Arafat was unwilling or unable (or both) to stop them. That ultimately undermined the Oslo Accords. Again, as important as words are, deeds count more.

Carter has, to his credit, made a lot of effort to go to the region, meet with people and study what it's all about. All the more reason why his blind spot for Hamas's criminality is shocking and puzzling. He's basically saying it's okay for a legitimate political party -- say, the Democrats or the Republicans -- to ally with Tony Soprano's organization because... well, he doesn't really say why. But he relies on some magical faith that such an alliance would clean up Tony's act, hold him in check.

My guess is that if the Sopranos had the chance to rule a government (from the inside), they'd jump at it and take advantage of the power it gives them to carry out their misdeeds. There would be no checks on their power. On the contrary, they would seize the power and it would be hard to hold them back.

One need only look to the immediate north of Israel, in Lebanon, where a similar murderous Hezbollah has strived hard -- and succeeded -- in taking control of the government there. That hasn't put a brake on Hezbollah's ambitions to go to war again some day with Israel. Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that Hezbollah has continued to arm itself for that very scenario.

"This accord should be viewed as the Palestinian contribution to the 'Arab awakening,'" Carter writes. Again, what is he thinking? The "Arab awakening" is about putting an end to the corrupt, tyrannical and immoral regimes that have oppressed their people for generations. Inviting another corrupt, tyrannical and immoral group to rule over Palestinians is exactly the opposite of what the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Bahrainians and other Arab populations have been trying to accomplish over the last few months.

Look, I want Palestinians to live peaceful and prosperous lives. I hate what they have to live through now. Ditto the Israelis. A two-state solution is probably the only solution to this. But I don't get the logic that Hamas, even when it's supposed held in check by Fatah, will lead to this scenario. Just the opposite.

THERE'S A LOT OF BIG NEWS around the world right now, more than global media outlets and even their audiences might have a chance to digest. Amidst it all, two tweets today, posted within a half hour of one another on the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman's Twitter feed:

So, even as missile attacks from Gaza continue to rain down on it, Israel allows essential aid to go through -- according to this report. That explodes -- sorry -- challenges what many might know or assume about Israel's stance on Gaza: that Israel's trying to choke off Gaza residents and that Gaza is no longer a threat to Israel.

Let's put a bookmark on these and keep them in mind when the focus shifts back, as it inevitably will, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

THERE'S A LOT OF CHATTER RIGHT NOW ABOUT A COLLISION between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about their disparate views on settlements of Israelis in the West Bank.

True, they disagree (at least according to their public statements), and true, that has put some pressure on Netanyahu. Israeli politics make it difficult for him to freeze expansion of settlements, let alone cut back on existing ones -- even if the Prime Minister does, in his heart, agree with Obama's position; and those same domestic pressures insist that every Israeli leader keep the American President on his side.

Obama is caught between two pressure points, too. Even before his speech in Cairo last week, addressed to the Muslim world, the President surely knew he needed to show the Palestinians and their supporters throughout the world that he would do more than talk about peace and reconciliation. He knew he had to put some visible pressure on Israel so as not to seem like anything less than a fair broker in the peace process.

On the other side, though, President Obama cannot beat up on Israel too much. That's because, first of all, he would upset an important constituency in his own party and in the U.S. And I don't mean only the Jewish community, but, I believe, most Americans who have consistently shown support for Israel (see, for example, this study by the Pew Research Center showing that Americans are more than four to one more likely to sympathize with Israel than with the Palestinians in their longstanding conflict: ) And, second of all, while I don't know Obama personally, he has given every indication that he, too, cares about the security of the State of Israel.

Indeed, I think Obama believes -- as I do -- that, as much as it may signal a rift between the U.S. and Israel, his posture on the settlements will help Israel. So, too, his insistence on a two-state solution, which, by the way, was George W. Bush's position, so I don't see what the conflict is there.

Some American Jews freak out, to put it nicely, whenever there is any daylight between the positions of the American and Israeli leaders. Many have continued to harbor suspicions they so irrationally held last year about Obama that he will endanger Israel. The fact is they probably represent a minority of American Jewish opinion on the settlements; I'm saying this without empirical evidence, but I think it's the case that most American Jews (myself included) have never understood how Israel could say it is ready for a peaceful reconciliation with Palestinians as it allowed an expansion of the settlements and created, as Ariel Sharon once referred to them, "facts on the ground."

But here's where I agree with some in the Jewish community who worry about the fixation on the settlements issue. Even as I think Israel needs to do something about pulling back (and that's a very vague term, I realize) on the settlements in the West Bank, it is a necessary, but not sufficient ingredient to progress. I don't think we should boil the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict down to settlements, as some critics and even friends of Israel often do.

If the settlements issue goes away next week -- that is, no expansion activity, or even, more extensively but untenably, Jews leave the West Bank altogether (along the lines of the so-named 2002 "Saudi Plan," or Arab Peace Initiative, which also call for the division of Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinians to pre-1948 homes in Israel proper) -- can anyone out there say that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would cease?

Does anyone truly believe that Israel's fiercest enemies, some of whom live in Gaza and the West Bank and have hurled virulent invective, missiles and other deadly attacks upon Israelis would say, "Okay, then, Israel has a right to exist. We will live side by side in peace with our good friends the Israelis?" Need I recite the vile and rejectionist language -- let alone violent actions -- from groups like Hamas and, just outside Israel, Hezbollah? Everything they say and do suggests they will see it not as an end to the conflict but as a new, opportune moment to continue the fight. I hope I'm wrong about that, but, c'mon, does anyone honestly disagree with that assessment? I believe there are many among the Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim worlds who are ready reconcile under the right conditions. But these more extreme forces still have the upper hand.

So, yes, Obama needs to place proper pressure on Israel to show the Arab world he means business, but he must not forget to do the same with the Palestinians. The American Jewish right is properly reminding him of this, but must also have the patience to let him do what he needs to do.The American Jewish left must resist the temptation to make the conflict all about the settlements and what Israel alone must do to contribute to the progress toward peace.

Obama has shown a willingness to press the Palestinian side, and, everything he has said and done suggests he will. (The rifts within the Palestinian community make it hard for them to deliver, unfortunately.) But, for some reason, what gets the ink and the air time is his supposedly tough talk with Netanyahu around the settlements issue, which is, to my mind, only a side show.

Jeff

The image above of President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the Oval Office on, May 18, 2009, is an Official White House Photo taken by Pete Souza.

THERE WAS SOME EXTRAORDINARY and, for me, heartening drama today at the U.N. Durban Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, the follow-up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

That last confab, which took place in Durban, South Africa, was so shot through with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that the U.S. and Israeli delegations ceremoniously and under a barrage of intense criticism walked out. It was one of the very few actions by the George W. Bush Administration that I thoroughly applauded. But much of the attention that should have been directed at this surreal event in Durban was obscured when the attacks of September 11 occurred less than a week later. Except for many of the activist groups that focused their energies (for either good or bad) on Durban I, few others even knew it took place.

A number of countries -- including the U.S., Canada, Australia, Poland, Italy, and Israel -- are boycotting the Durban II conference, which began today, and, as you'll see below, a number of other European countries walked out today when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad took the conference dais to speak.

Yes, that's right, Ahmedinejad, who has called the Holocaust a lie and has spouted reams of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist invective during his tenure over the last several years and whose government is hardly the model of human rights practices. He was the lead-off hitter at a conference against racism. And he was fresh off of a meeting last night with Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz, a gesture that prompted Israel to ask its Ambassador to Switzerland to go back to Israel for consultations (not a formal recall, but a rebuke nonetheless). Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak put it just right when he said today, "It's an upside-down world, when the president of Iran can be a guest of honor at an anti-racism conference."

Critics of the boycotting countries are pointing to the fact that all of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel language in the conference's official pronouncements have been expunged. But, as National Security Council aide Samantha Power reportedly said in a conference call last week with Jewish leaders, Durban II is still on track to "reaffirm, in toto, Durban I," as if to say, everything we said then goes for us double now. "We want to show good faith to our allies and the people who are working hard to improve the text." Power said. "...But we are also not interested in being involved or associated with fool's errands."

In the words of one those who attended Durban I, "The World Conference against Racism triggered intimidation and harassment against Jews, just a few hours before the September 11 attacks on the United States. The brutality unleashed in Durban, the collective anger against Israel, the United States, and the West in general resonated as a warning of what was to come.... In Durban, the international NGO community was complicit in the attempt to criminalize the Jews. At a lightning pace, a minority of delegates managed to manipulate thousands of participants and impose their resentful ideology. In only a few days, a collective moral code was constructed. It called upon civil society to distinguish the 'good' from the 'evil.'"

What also scared and saddened me after Durban I were the number of human rights and anti-racism groups (including many prominent and otherwise respectable ones I've known and even worked with in the United States) that looked the other way on this. So invested were they in a conference that would shine a spotlight on certain kinds of human indignities that they were willing to throw the Jews and Israel over the side to get what they wanted. They pilloried Jewish community, Israel and the U.S. government as opponents to racial harmony and tolerance, even as pronouncements about "Israeli apartheid" and "Zionism = racism" and even worse stuff than that floated around them in Durban. It didn't matter that, on so many occasions and for decades, Jewish activists had been there with them to fight racism. When it came to bigotry against Jews and Israel, however, our friends did not reciprocate. (I'm pleased to see that at least one of the groups that took this stand in 2001 has urged the U.S. to address the problems at Durban II. I'm not mentioning any names, sorry.)

I was pissed and hurt by this. For a period of maybe 50 or 60 years since the Holocaust, the world was finally aware of the danger of anti-Semitism, and, at least in respectable company, it was viewed as radioactive. But, by Durban I (and, arguably well before) that taboo had worn off to the point that a U.N.-sponsored forum on racism became a legitimate platform for taking shots at the Jews and Israel. And, since 2001, that taboo seems to have all but disappeared in some geographies and communities. It is getting scary.

But back to what happened in Geneva today. As Zvika Krieger, a correspondent for The New Republic recounts in a live, play-by-play blogging account, President Ahmedinejad was the first of several heads of state to open the conference with short introductory speeches:

"Ahmedinejad just walked in.

"There seems to be some confusion. He is walking to the seat of the Iranian delegation, not the stage. The chair of the conference seems confused. Ok, now he is finally being escorted to the podium. He begins speaking, thanking Allah.

"Some activists are interrupting his speech. They are wearing clown wigs and red noses, and yelling 'Racist! Racist.' There seem to be three of them, in different parts of the hall. They've been escorted out by security guards. There is a loud applause, though it is unclear whether they are clapping for the activists or the guards.

"He continues speaking through the whole fiasco. He is taking a lot of time to thank Allah and his prophets.

"Now we're getting a lecture on the history of war, ending with WWII. He transitions into an indictment of the Security Council, questioning the motives of superpowers giving themselves veto powers. Enough of the subtlety -- he condemns their role in the creation of the state of Israel, and starts ripping into Zionism.

"The EU is walking out! The entire France, Bulgarian, and Hungarian delegation just walked out. I think others walked out too -- can't see their placards. The press box is going crazy. The entire hall has erupted in applause -- some applauding the delegate who walked out, some applauding Ahemdinejad for continuing his anti-Israel tirade.

"Ahmediniejad continues, condemning 'the most racist regime,' a litany of generic Israel canards. A group of Israeli students start yelling 'Racist! Racist!' from the viewing gallery. No one seems to be stopping them. Two Iranian women in hijabs start waving their fists at them. After a few minutes, security finally arrives and escorts out one of the Israel students. Now another one has started yelling 'Facist! Facist!'

"Ahmediniejad is now ripping into America for invading Iraq. The usual stuff about arrogance and racism.

"Now he's veered into banal pronouncements about ignorance and history and racism and the creation of the universe and worshipping god.

"Oops, he's back to Israel! 'A kind of racism that has tarnished the image of humanity ... The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces." And Jews control the media! And the major world powers! "Cultural endeavors are not enough. Efforts must be made to put an end to efforts made by Zionists and their supporters. ... Governments must be encouraged in their efforts and their fights to eradicate this barbaric racism.'

"Another protestor starts shouting from the plenary floor. He is quickly apprehended and silenced.

"Now A-jad is talking about a changing of the global order, and the upending of traditional power structures. "Western liberalism and capitalism, like communism, has reached to its end since it has failed to perceive the truth of the world and humanity as it is.

"Now he is back to the Security Council, calling for the elimination of the 'discriminatory veto right.' Some generic language about love and happiness and cooperation and overhauling the global monetary system. And finally, 'Let us all join hands in amity ... in fulfillment of a decent new world.' Amen.

"UPDATE: The foreign minister of Norway is up next, and he is calling out A-jad, whose speech he says 'threatens the very focus of the conference.' The declaration of this conference included 'the need to protect against incitement to hatred. I heard the messages inside the president's speech. I heard incitement and hatred. This is not a finger-pointing exercise. The president has made Iran the odd man out, and Norway will not accept the odd man out hijacking the efforts of the many. ... We cannot surrender the floor of the United Nations to extremism.' Huge applause erupts in the hall."

I'm not always a fan of street theater, but it seems to fit in this circumstance given the absurdity of the scene. And let's hope it raises some real awareness about the toxicity of racism and bigotry, in this case against the Jews.

IN1987, AT THE START OF what was to become the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, I heard a senior Israeli diplomat tell an American audience, "This is not a beauty contest!"

Translation: 'We, Israel, will do what we have to do to respond to the violence and keep order. We can't worry about how it looks or what the rest of the world thinks.'

The trouble with those two sentences is that, in practice, they don't coexist well. It was a beauty contest, whether Israel liked it or not. The rest of the world was scrutinizing and mostly criticizing Israel's every action, which, within the limits of the cameras' frames, appeared to be responding too harshly to a bunch of rock-throwing boys. The fact was -- and still is -- that Israel's image and international political standing suffered badly because it did what it had to do, regardless of how justified it may have been and how it looked to the outside.

As I've written here several times before (see this, this, this, or this), that's the unfortunate position Israel has long faced as it has tried to respond to Palestinian violence -- which, over the years, only seems to have gotten worse and more bent on Israel's destruction. Israel has long been caught between two bad options. On the one hand, Israel cannot sit idly by and ignore threats to the safety of its own people -- such as thousands of missile salvos shot for years by Hamas on Israeli population centers. Nor can it, on the other hand, ever try to defend against such threats without prompting the ire of the international community.

That's especially true today, as Israel heads into three weeks of air and ground action action in Gaza to eliminate -- or at least subdue -- Hamas's deadly missile attacks. As has too often been the case when Israel acts, many innocent (along with the not-so-innocent) people -- women and children among them -- have lost their lives or been badly injured. Life in Gaza is a nightmare for those who have been spared. No no matter where one may stand on the conflict, no one can deny it is a terrible and sickening situation for those innocent people in Gaza.

And few, even those who have little sympathy for Israel, can deny that hitting innocents this time was nearly unavoidable, if Israel were to respond at all. Hamas has located legitimate military targets close to homes, schools, refugee camps and other places where civilians are concentrated. It's difficult for Israel to refrain from going after those targets, from defending itself.

It followed that option of restraint for years. During that time, Israeli towns were under a harrowing and constant threat of missile attacks. (This video tells the story well.) During that time, few voices from the international community raged against the perpetrators, engaged in feverish shuttle diplomacy or hastily convened the U.N. Security Council to pass emergency cease-fire resolutions.

So we have now a familiar dynamic. The latest operation has forged a widespread consensus in Israel, where consensus is rare (you know, three Jews, five opinions...) that Israel's current actions just and necessary. Polls have shown that more than 80 percent approve of the current course, and I suspect that large numbers of Jews in the diaspora feel the same, though probably not as high a proportion as we see among Israelis.

"This is a just war and we don’t feel guilty when civilians we don’t intend to hurt get hurt, because we feel Hamas uses these civilians as human shields," Elliot Jager, editorial page editor of The Jerusalem Post, told The New York Times this week. "We do feel bad about it, but we don’t feel guilty."

In addition to the hostility aimed at Israelis and its supporters around the world as a results, what's most vexing and discouraging is the familiar feeling of isolation. Again from the Times article above: "'It is very frustrating for us not to be understood,' remarked Yoel Esteron, editor of a daily business newspaper called Calcalist. 'Almost 100 percent of Israelis feel that the world is hypocritical. Where was the world when our cities were rocketed for eight years and our soldier was kidnapped? Why should we care about the world’s view now?'" So it is a beauty contest.

It also hurts that so many around the world views Israelis as genocidal maniacs. I know, the terrible plight of Gaza's innocent Palestinians and Israel's determination to keep on attacking until Hamas is neutralized leads people to that conclusion.

The truth is that Israel wishes these innocents had remained safe (thus the showering of warning leaflets and phone calls to Gaza residents urging them to take cover prior to attacks). The truth is that, more than anything, Israelis and their supporters want peace, not what they have now. I hear it all the time from every Israeli who has ever said anything on the subject. They want peace more than anything. They hate seeing people killed or hurt, on either side of the conflict. Hate it!

Can anyone seriously say that about Hamas or Hezbollah? Seriously. Their hate and desire for more casualties, especially Jews, is at the heart of this conflict. Absent that, most analysts say there are a sufficient number of Israelis and Arabs who could come to terms and make a real go of co-existence.

Unfortunately, the choices, again, are rotten. To the Israelis, the only clear path to peace is, ironically, through military action. As Sallai Meridor, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, said at a pro-Israel rally I attended last week in Washington, "We are fighting terror to give peace a chance." Again, the endgame for Israel is peace, not conflict, hard as that may be for some people to imagine.

It seems very sad really, to fight for peace. And it will not win any beauty contests. But can anyone offer a better alternative?

YOM KIPPUR, the day when Jews seek forgiveness for past transgressions and commit to avoiding them in the next year, just came and went a few weeks ago. But already there are many Jews who are assembling a long list of new transgressions to atone for next year.

I'm speaking specifically of those who have brought dishonor upon all of us in the Jewish community with their mean-spirited, misleading, anti-intellectual and ultimately counterproductive attempts to paint Barack Obama as a threat to Jewish interests. To call it a shanda -- a shame or scandal -- is an understatement.

I'm not talking about differences on policy, such as whether or not Obama's health care plan is sufficient to address our health care problems, or whether or not his stated plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq based on a firm timetable makes sense, or whether or not he should have qualified his answer to the question he got about 18 months ago about meeting with the President of Iran unconditionally. (He should have qualified his answer. Obama botched that one, and he essentially acknowledged that by correcting himself shortly thereafter, but some people still think -- or want to believe -- that's his position). Those are examples of issues about which reasonable minds can -- and, in a vibrant democracy, should -- disagree.

I'm talking about character assassination, starting with questions about whether or not he is a Muslim who was educated in a madrassa. Yes, I have heard some Jews "wonder" about this. (And good for Colin Powell when he asked on NBC's "Meet the Press," so what if he is a Muslim? That is exactly the right response to this canard, just as "so what if he were a Jew" would be the response we in the Jewish community would demand if a candidate were being "accused" of being a Jew.) And let's not forget the Jeremiah Wright controversy. I am still troubled that Obama put up with Wright's ugly remarks for so long, but I don't believe it reflects where Obama stands.

And then there's the question about whether or not he will be "good" for Israel. As I wrote on this blog months ago, his positions at the time were so general, even a leading Taldmudic scholar would have a hard time reading the Obama's tea leaves. Beside, I wrote, doesn't that litmus test depend on how one defines "good for Israel"? By that standard, there are many patriotic Israelis -- not even the so-called "left wingers" -- who would not qualify. To some standard holders, one must be more frum than the Chief Rabbi to be "good for Israel. "

And since I wrote that post, Obama did more than clarify where he stands on Israel, and his statements were as stalwart as any pro-Israel shtarker, or hardliner, would want them to be. Notably, in June he delivered a speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington. "We know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security," he told the crowd, in a speech that contained all the right words, as far as the pro-Israel community in the U.S. is concerned. That speech and other pronouncements should have put to rest whether or not he is "good" for Israel.

Of course, though, there are some who apparently would prefer not to take yes for an answer. They still pound on him, pointing to one minor trip-up from that speech -- a controversy about whether or not the U.S. should acknowledge the unity of Jerusalem. That's a long-standing sticky wicket of U.S. political leaders. If George W. Bush is so "good" on Israel, as many in the Jewish community think (not a majority), why didn't he acknowledge an "undivided Jerusalem" by moving our Embassy there from Tel Aviv long ago? It's such a non-issue, but some have used it as a window into what's truly in Obama's heart. They don't seem to want to acknowledge the rest of what Obama had to say in that AIPAC speech.

Now, at the most desperate hour for McCain and the Obama detractors, we see what can best be described as silliness, but also deserves the moniker of shameful.

Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" a couple of nights ago, former G.W. Bush White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer, who has been recruited to get some Jewish votes for McCain, was throwing all kinds of crap at Obama, questioning his credentials as a supporter of Israel. And then he stooped even lower when he said, "I'm afraid that Jesse Jackson has probably read Barack Obama better when he said that this election is going to represent a fundamental change in America's policy toward Israel. And I think he's got a good read on it." (Jackson had said a couple of weeks ago that Obama is not pro-Israel. He also suggested a few months that Obama should be, shall we say, physically emasculated, which tells us that Jackson cannot possibly be a campaign insider.)

Dee Dee Meyers, Fleischer's counterpart in the Clinton Administration, pounced. Things have gotten so bad for the Republicans, she said, that "respected Bush administration officials are counting on Jesse Jackson for their closing arguments."

Then we just heard about an e-mail sent to 75,000 Jews in Pennsylvania by Jewish Republicans in that state that Obama, if President, will usher in a second Holocaust against the Jews. That's probably based on the logic that Obama's one gaffe almost a couple of years ago suggesting he would meet with the world-class anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will unconditionally and automatically mean annihilation of Israel. My guess is that if Ahmedinejad wants to whip Israel off the face of the earth, as he has promised, he won't wait for validation from a President Obama.

Lastly, there is now this allegation that Obama is somehow under the radical influence of Palestinian American scholar Rashid Khalidi. I have long known of Khalidi and disagreed with many of his conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it strikes me as radical in itself to accuse him of being a terrorist; that's essentially the allegation. I assume the University of Chicago and Columbia University, where he has been on faculty, would have had nothing to do with him if that were the case. And then to suggest that he and Obama are somehow tight or that there would be something wrong with Obama even listening to what Khalidi, a recognized scholar and expert, has to say on the subject, c'mon, guys.

As former peace process negotiator, Israel supporter, smart guy and Obama advisor, Ambassador Dennis Ross said in the Jerusalem Post: "He's [Khalidi] someone that [Obama] has known. I know [Khalidi] too. Because I know him does that somehow reflect on me?"

So what started as a whispering campaign within the Jewish community maligning Obama by painting him as a threat to Israel and all Jews has no pretense now of being quiet or anonymous. These guys will try anything, however intellectually dishonest it may be. Whatever it takes, they seem to be saying.

But they will need a lot more than some al chetsnext Yom Kippur to cleanse themselves of these unspeakable acts. By the way, according to Jewish law about lashon harah (the evil tongue, or rumor-mongering and slander), that goes not only for those who sling the mud but also those who countenance it. All of us in the Jewish community, including the majority who find this kind of behavior despicable, are much less well off because of it.

I SAW THE DOCUMENTARY "REFUSENIK" ABOUT TEN DAYS AGO, and it provoked a lot of thoughts about what happens when people fight for what's right.

The film chronicles the plight of Jews who tried to free themselves from the persecution of the Soviet Union and of the people -- mostly in the United States -- who tried to help them. It shows how what ultimately became a celebrated global movement for human rights started with only a few rather passionate and determined people inside and outside the U.S.S.R.

The movement was powered by a relatively small (as compared to the vast numbers in the U.S.S.R. overall) group of Jews, who took enormous personal risks by daring to apply for exit visas from their country. The subsequent refusal (thus the moniker "refusenik") by the Soviet authorities ensured these applicants and their families would lose their jobs, be monitored and harassed constantly by the KGB, committed to psychiatric hospitals and/or exiled to remote, inhospitable locales such as Siberia.

Starting in the early 1960s, small groups of vocal activist students began to publicize the cause of Soviet Jews, later capturing more widespread attention first from what the film repeatedly refers to as the "establishment" of the Jewish community and then leaders and grassroots from many non-Jewish backgrounds.

With the benefit of some rather remarkable film footage from the time and of more recent interviews (with many of the most famous refuseniks such as Natan and Avital Sharansky, Vitali Rubin, Vladimir and Maria Slepak, and Ephraim Kholmyansky, as well as with figures such as Eli Wiesel, Mikhail Gorbachev, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz), we hear the captives and their supporters in the West talk about some of the brazen efforts to outwit the KGB and to inflict pain on the Soviet government. Like survivors and rescuers during the Holocaust, the refuseniks leave you wondering whether you could ever endure what they did if you had faced the same harsh choices.

For so many years, their efforts appeared rather like a flea stepping on the toe of an elephant. Little by little, as the movement for Soviet Jewry grew around the world and the heroic refuseniks themselves loomed larger as symbols of Soviet oppression, the Soviets started to relent. The elephant yielded. In the 1970s, the Soviets allowed the incremental release of a few small groups of Jews and some higher-profile refuseniks, whose celebrity embarrassed the regime. Eventually, as the Soviet system began to crumble, hundreds of thousands eventually left for refuge elsewhere.

Second to the extraordinary and inspiring heroics of the refuseniks themselves, what moved me also was the Soviet Jewry movement itself, which was committed not to let the refuseniks' struggles be forgotten. The movement drew on people far beyond the Jewish community -- civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin, leading Christian clergy, sympathetic public commentators and the political leadership of many nations, especially my own. They created a juggernaut that put the refuseniks' plight high on the list of U.S. foreign policy priorities and on the agendas of summits between American and Soviet Presidents.

Learning about this (again, as I had some involvement with it in the '80s), I was struck that nearly no one, certainly no one thoughtful and influential in American political life, questioned this massive mobilization by the American Jewish community in the way many do the efforts today of pro-Israel activists.

Why is that? I know this might sound willfully ignorant to those who have criticized Israel's actions against Palestinians, but tell me, please, how Israel's struggle to defend itself from terrorism and possibly all-out destruction is any less just a cause than that of Jews trying to throw off the yoke of repression in the U.S.S.R.?

How is it that a well-organized, passionate community of pro-Israel activists is accused -- even by otherwise respected political analysts -- of subverting the U.S. foreign interests, when there was no similar opposition to the Soviet Jewry movement some 20 or 30 years ago (at least not as much as I think there was)?

Part of the answer, of course, is that the cause of Soviet Jewry served the cause of anti-Communism, which enjoyed broad-based support in the U.S. And the Rooskies were the villains and the poor suffering Jews were the victims; it was a simple frame.

To most, the Arab-Israeli conflict looks far more complicated -- and in many ways it is, not least because the Israelis are well armed, and, notwithstanding horrific acts of terror against Israelis, they don't always appear to be the victims. And to some, the very notion of Zionism -- of Jews having their own state -- is illegitimate.

What's most disturbing about all that is a willful ignorance to see that the cause of peace and prosperity for Israel -- and, yes, for non-Israelis, too -- is as just as the cause for Soviet Jewry, or for any oppressed group around the world. No people should be forced to endure a 60-year siege, to be subjected to murderous attacks on its streets and to be constantly targeted for extinction, as Mssrs. Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Meshal and others like them would have it.

Still there are those who question pro-Israel activism. They almost invariably assume that the goal of U.S. support for Israel is the result of some immoral deal that lawmakers cut for political expedience. Did it ever occur to them that political leaders believe in U.S. support for Israel because they see it as a just cause?

I'm not defining "U.S. support for Israel" as unconditional support for any Israeli policy, no matter how misguided. Israel, like any grown-up, modern state is not perfect. And, as I have argued here several times before, it is faced with two bad choices -- on the one hand, the insecurity that comes with a policy of restraint, and the opprobrium that comes with taking firm, decisive action to defend itself.

Still, tell me what is unjust about sticking by a nation that shares what we believe are enlightened values, that is an agent of intellectual, human and cultural progress in the world and that is the object of so much irrational and vitriolic hatred. Is it that some are uncomfortable with the prospect of Jewish power -- either in the form of a well-organized community of advocates or in the form of a state capable of protecting itself?

BEYOND MANY OF THE EDITORIAL PAGES OF MAJOR WESTERN NEWSPAPERS, most of the public criticism of former President Jimmy Carter's meetings this past week with Hamas leadership came from largely from Israelis and most of Israel's Jewish supporters around the world. That's not to say that the criticism was any less valid. But I worry that, when Israelis and the Jews are once again fighting a battle like this on their own, many others around the world tend to discount their views as the same old intransigence.

So rather than rehearse many of the same arguments that other Jewish supporters for Israel are making about President Carter's misguided diplomacy, I thought it would be refreshing to look at a different source and see what his views are on the subject. In this case, I've chosen someone who has been in a good position to evaluate the role of violent extremism among Arab groups in the Middle East, someone who is not motivated necessarily by his embrace of Israel.

RPS describes itself as a "Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11. The party is governed by secular, peace committed American-Syrians, Euro-Syrians, and native Syrians who are determined to see that a 'New Syria' is reborn that embraces real democratic and economic reforms." And, with his frequent and vigorous speeches, testimonies in Congress, regular blog entries and various other public utterances, Ghadry provides anyone who will listen regular reminders to pay attention to the misdeeds of the Assad regime and to the courageous efforts of those who oppose it.

With that in mind and knowing of his longtime criticism of extremists (particularly those with strong ties to Assad), it's not entirely surprising that Ghadry would be critical of President Carter's meetings with Hamas. But, as with Jewish and Israeli responses to President Carter's meeting, Ghadry's perspective still gives his arguments as much power as any.

The direct and indirect effect of President Jimmy Carter's visit to Gaza, Egypt, and Damascus to meet with members of Hamas sends chills down the spine of every Arab and Muslim working for reforms in the Middle East because it legitimizes terror and violence and dilutes all the efforts that peaceful Arab reformers have committed themselves to. One such reformer told me: "Why are we working so hard for peace if the Americans prefer to deal with terror?.'" I could not utter but words of encouragement knowing deep inside that he is right.

He goes on:

Under the auspices of “seeking peace”, President Carter is reversing years of hard work by many Palestinians and Israelis who see the road to co-existence paved by true peaceful acts. For President Carter to meet with individuals with blood on their hands not only legitimizes terror but it also encourages it in two ways: It sends the signal to Hamas that its violence pays off but also inspires those who vacillate between violence and peace to surrender to violence.

Ghadry's most valuable message, then, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, despite that terminology, not strictly between Israelis and Palestinians. Rather, it is between the forces of moderation and the forces of extremism on both sides of the conflict. My belief (and more knowledgeable people than I would probably agree) is that there are a large number of Israelis and Arabs, who if they had their way, could pretty quickly come close to resolving many of the issues that have divided them for so many years. The main obstacle, however, are those who see any such co-existence and cooperation between the two peoples as a threat and who will do anything to derail peace.

Ghadry is not saying (nor am I) that the forces of good should do nothing at all to deal with groups like Hamas and extremist regimes like Iran and Syria. As he writes:

Part of the blame for Carter’s trip falls on this administration as well. The policy of “no policy” towards Syria and Iran has fostered this sense of mid-air suspension that inevitably encourages people like president Carter to apply the laws of physics. Had the US foreign policy been more forceful than simply attempt to isolate Hamas and Syria, the US may had seen faster pace to peace than what the molasses isolationist policy can deliver.

I'm not completely sure what Ghadry means when he says "more forceful." I hope he means it in the diplomatic sense and not through military action against these groups. That's my preference, and one only needs to look at the mess in Iraq to understand why.

But we need diplomacy that's more careful and evenhanded than what President Carter, who has vilely compared Israel to the South African Apartheid governments of years past, has to offer. Ghadry's right that someone with the stature of Jimmy Carter -- a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and tireless advocate for peace and human rights -- frustrates the careful (and probably not-so-careful) efforts of those on both sides of the Israeli-Arab divide who are trying to solve this problem of extremism. It allows the good guys to look like the obstructionists to peace and the bad guys look like great statesmen willing to compromise without really having to compromise.

If you have any doubt that Hamas really doesn't want to compromise, by the way, just read what Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas's "foreign minister," wrote in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post three days ago:

A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

This is not compromise, especially when you know that Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Rather, it is like one boxer telling another to tie his hands behind his back so the first boxer can finish the other off -- with knives and bullets.

And these are the guys to whom President Carter decides to lend his prestige? Does President Carter have any prestige left to give?

OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, I’ve heard a number of Jewish friends say in private and other Jewish voices say in public that they worry that Barack Obama will be “bad for Israel.”

What’s most intriguing about these observations is that, while Obama is maddeningly vague and unspecific on practically every issue (which is mostly why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary), these American Jews somehow seem to know for certain where he stands on Israel.

Much of the present whisper campaign against Obama seems curiously to have emanated from Jewish Republicans. For example Marc Zell, who identifies himself as Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel (boy, there’s an organization for everything), went after Obama in a Jerusalem Post piece recently. So did the Republican Jewish Coalition, which regularly and shamelessly plays a more-pro-Israel-than-thou act, accusing Jewish Democrats of selling out the Jewish State. Strangely enough, for example, the RJC gladly quoted Ralph Nader recently, for saying that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate." All of the sudden, Nader’s a credible source for the RJC.

But, to be fair the attacks on Obama don’t appear to be only the work of a Republican smear campaign. I’ve heard nervousness about Obama, too, in the voices of many committed Democrats who are Jewish.

Of course, everyone (even his supporters) is reading Obama's tea leaves. He offered a little more substance (but not a lot) to his thinking about the Israeli-Arab conflict and about how he finds Louis Farrakhan unsavory, in some recent public utterances on the subject, meant to disarm the charges against him. I personally find what he said fairly unobjectionable, though his past statements such as, "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" are troubling in their ignorance.

Obama’s Jewish critics are focusing less on what he has said (or not said) than on the advisors who surround him –- “guilt by association,” he calls it.

Frankly, I think assessing any candidate by the company he keeps is fair game, especially in Obama’s case. While he may not himself know or want to articulate in detail what he will do on any of the wide range of policy challenges he would face as President, I have to believe –- or, better yet, I sincerely hope –- he will have the good judgment to bring in good people who know about specific issues. So it’s not unreasonable to look at the credentials and views of the people on his campaign foreign policy team.

On that criterion, Obama’s candidacy turns out to be a mixed bag, at least as far as some people are concerned. Some of his advisors (some of which are truly advising him, he says, and some are pretty much in name only) have reputations as solidly “good for Israel,” and a few –- really only a few –- have records that have for understandably concerned some in the pro-Israel community.

Even Martin Peretz, the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic, and a full-throated supporter of Obama, conceded recently that a “charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that he has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.”

Interestingly, however, Peretz, is a hawkish supporter of Israel, which might surprise many who are responsible for or influenced by the anti-Obama whisper campaign. “Barack Obama's views on Israel and the possibilities of peace between it and the Palestinians are both tough-minded and deeply comprehending,” Peretz wrote. “I don't at all think that I'd be disappointed with an Obama presidency, and certainly not with his attitude towards the Jewish State."

I really don't think Obama will be hostile to Israel. But the truth is, we never really know what someone’s position on Israel (or any other major policy issue) will be until he’s faced with real and difficult decisions as President of the United States.

Most of the pro-Israel hardliners’ money in 2000 said that George W. Bush would be “good on Israel,” and in 2004, I heard that sentiment again, even from some Jewish Democrats who were concerned that John Kerry would not be sympathetic enough (based on seemingly no good evidence).

But who among those hardliners would have believed that George W. Bush would endorse –- as President! –- the idea of a fully autonomous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel? Who would have thought that his administration would use up all-too-little political capital on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for most his presidency –- at least not until a few months ago in Annapolis when most of that political capital had waned? If pro-Israel supporters of candidate Bush had known that’s how President Bush’s term would have turned, I have to believe they would have roundly criticized him in 2000, and opposed him again in 2004, too.

And one has to wonder whether the invasion of Iraq, President Bush’s biggest foreign policy initiative -– and the perhaps the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the republic -– was ultimately good for Israel. I know a lot of pro-Israel people thought it would be (which is not to say, as some vile critics of Israel and Jews have, that the Jewish community somehow duped our nation’s leaders into this war). But in retrospect these pro-Israel supporters of the U.S. invasion of Iraq have to admit that things didn’t turn out the way they had hoped. Arguably, Israel’s neighborhood is even more dangerous and unstable now than it was before March 2003. Still think George W. Bush was “good for Israel”?

All of this, of course, prompts the question: what makes a U.S. President good for Israel? I’d love to hear everyone else’s thoughts, but here are a few from me (not necessarily an exhaustive list). He or she recognizes and acts on the principle that:

Israel is an ally that shares the values of the U.S., and it is a critical fulcrum of economic and political progress in the Middle East.

Israel is not to blame for all the calamities of the Middle East.

The conflict in the Middle East is ostensibly between Israel and its Arab adversaries, but really between moderates (Arabs, Muslims, Jews and many others in the region), who would be happy living side-by-side, and extremists, who only want to create chaos.

Israel has been forced to fight a frontline battle against extremism that is aimed not just at the Jewish state but at many other countries. For this reason, those countries should be respectful and sympathetic to Israel, which is fighting their war for them, not critical of its every action.

Israel’s military actions are, at their root, defensive, borne of the necessity to protect its citizens and, indeed, its existence against those who threaten them.

Israel is faced with a choice between two bad options: taking military action, which brings about resentment, rage and criticism from the international community, and not defending its citizens against terrorist attacks, an unconscionable path for any sovereign nation.

A U.S. President must expend some energy and political capital to help move Israel and the Palestinians in the direction of reconciliation.

There cannot be any progress unless there is an ironclad guarantee that any agreement will make Israelis secure and put Palestinians on a path to prosperity and peace for themselves.

This is unlikely to materialize so long as there are parties, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that are out to destroy Israel.

Israelis truly want peace and deserve it.

Palestinians, too, deserve what every human being deserves: peace, prosperity and happiness.

YESTERDAY, I HEARD SOMEONE REFER TO THE HORRIFIC SHOOTING SPREE at Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem on March 6 as something "we need to make sense of."

That's a familiar phrase we hear in the wake of such evil events as this, or mass killings at a school or another public place here in the U.S., or other terrorist attacks across the world. Media tell us of grieved survivors who are just 'trying to make some sense of this tragic loss.'

I seriously don't mean any disrespect to those who use this phrase. I think what they are really trying to say is that the survivors and others touched by the tragedies are "trying to cope." I'm sure they mean well and are just grasping at some words to express outrage and grief.

But, in this language, there is an embedded idea that somehow we can figure out what went on here, find meaning in the losses, even as there was no meaningful reason for them, and (another phrase that mystifies me) attain "closure."

The idea seems to be that we can make sense out of an act that has no good purpose and is nonsensical on its face. I don't want to make sense of these acts because it would treat them as more rational than they truly are. It would make explicable the inexplicable. To me that's a little too close to making them excusable.

Perhaps we can stop using this 'making sense' phrase in these situations.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, A LOT IS BEING WRITTEN AND SAID right now to analyze the legacy of the Six-Day War, which began 40 years ago yesterday. One of the pieces that especially caught my eye appeared on the Web site of the Pew Forum of Religion and Public Life.

Titled "A Six-Day War: Its Aftermath In American Public Opinion," the analysis by Robert Ruby of the Pew Forum showed how a consistently large majority Americans prior to and certainly following the Six-Day War have always favored Israel over its Arab adversaries. While many in the pro-Israel community in the U.S. are ever wringing their hands that Americans are turning their backs on Israel, poisoned by biased media reports from the Middle East and by increasingly sophisticated anti-Israel campaigns, the empirical research just doesn't bear that out.

Indeed, if anything, the events in the Middle East themselves and Israel's own actions appear to have more of impact on American opinion, but even then, Israel comes out strong.

Ruby points out that in 1948 and '49, surveys showed that Americans sympathized for Jews over Arabs in the "conflict in Palestine" by a three-to-one margin, roughly 33 percent to about 12 percent -- though more than half had no opinion at the time.

By 1967, Israel's stunning victory over its Arab enemies so captivated Americans that more than 45 percent said they sympathized with Israel as opposed to four percent for "Arab States," which was how Gallup worded the surveys at the time. The lowest favorability rating by Americans for Israel, 32 percent, came in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon. But for the most part that level hovered in the 40 percent range no matter what party was in power or what debacle the Israeli government found itself in. Indeed, more Americans (64 percent) sypmpathized with Israel at the time of the first Gulf War -- when Iraqi Scuds rained on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and Israel showed its restraint by not entering the war -- than at any other time.

Ratings for "Arab States" or later Palestinians stayed mostly in the teens and below, shooting up to a high of 28 percent for the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Even during last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, 53 percent of Americans sympathized with Israel (up from a year earlier) and 11 percent sided with the Palestinians (down by a number of points from the year before).

If you look at the numbers graphically (which you can, if you go to the Pew Forum's site), you'll see that the gap is enormous and, expect in 1982, almost never came close to closing.

The obvious question is why, and the answers are not altogether obvious. I think it comes down to the fact that Israelis reflect many of the same enlightened democratic values that Americans do, and Americans see that -- notwithstanding some of the ugly, seemingly undemocratic things Israel must do because it has been conducting a defensive military operation since its creation in 1948. Americans don't see those same values reflected in the voices of Hamas leaders or others who have been the loyal antagonists to the Jewish State.

There's also the religion factor. America is, not officially but demographically, a Christian nation, and many Americans have a fondness and yearning for "The Holy Land." This is especially true among Evangelicals, a majority of whom, when asked in a Pew Survey in 2004, agreed that the U.S. government should support Israel over the Palestinians. Most other religious groups, save Jews, favored Palestinians. What emerges from many of these numbers, too, is an answer to those who argue that the Jewish "lobby" in American has undue influence over our nation's foreign policy. It would be disingenuous to act as though the pro-Israel community in the U.S. has not organized itself well to advocate on behalf of Israel, that it has not tried to make the case for a strong relationship between Israel and the U.S. There's no question about that.

But maybe, just maybe, the politicians and policymakers in the Administration are responding to a genuine feeling of support from the American people for a country that, against staggering odds 40 years ago, pulled off a miracle and has since then proven its worth to them.

It's interesting, too, that according to the 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Project, Americans stand far away from the rest of the world in their regard for Israel. A larger plurality of Brits 29 percent to 24 percent) sympathize with the Palestinians over Israel, according to the Project. In France the proportion is even at 38 percent; Indians favor Palestinians by 20 to 22. In China, only seven percent favor Israel to 23 percent for the Palestinians, and in Spain that proporation is a surprising 9 percent for Israel to 32 percent for Palestinians. German opinion is, believe it or not, much closer to American opinion, with 37 percent sympathizing with Israel and 18 percent with the Palestians, and the Russians pick Israel by a 21 to 16 margin.

My point in citing these numbers is that, even in many places where the so-called "Jewish lobby" is much weaker (if it exists at all) than it is in the U.S., there is no strong support among the people.No one accuses the 'lobby' of subverting their intests, though many of their governments do have good political ties to Israel.

Favorability is not the entire game, but it's not unimportant.I think that will be good for Israel for a long time to come

THE WASHINGTON POST RAN A REMARKABLE AND FASCINATING ARTICLE the other day giving an inside account of the decision making that goes on within the Israeli military, intelligence and political community when it comes to targeted killings. That's Israel's practice of pinpoint killings of terrorist leaders.

It was remarkable not only for the level of detail the reporter, Laura Blumenfeld was able to gather and describe (she has, over the years, filed many great stories like this one on a pretty wide range of topics). It was notable also because it showed the exquisite dilemmas the Israelis go through before they decide to pull the trigger, as it were, to eliminate their supreme enemies.

The article illustrates vividly what I have noted on this blog several times in the past: Israel is constantly offered two equally bad choices: attacking its adversaries, which sometimes involves killing innocents and, even when it doesn’t, usually brings about the opprobrium of the international community; or backing off and exposing its citizens to harm.

According to the article, Israel arrived at this practice as a way of getting at the hardest of the most hardened leaders of the terrorists who plan deadly attacks against Israelis. They reason that it might be a deterrent to get the guys who don't really kill themselves in these operations and get their own hands dirty, to speak. And they go after them only when all other means of capturing them are exhausted.

But it's not so easy, especially when you consider that doing so could mean hurting or killing innocents.

Blumenfeld portrays Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, one of the Israel's top military commanders as the proponent of some restraint, as the one more driven by the moral considerations than by the cold military needs. And, in the other corner, she puts Avi Dichter, who at the time of the events described in the piece was the head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency.

As far as Dichter is concerned, Israel's approach to counter-terrorism is, "It's not an eye for an eye. "It's having him for lunch before he has you for dinner." He adds elsewhere: "And if the terrorists walk out [of a targeted attack] alive, and tomorrow another bus explodes, how do we explain it to our people?"

That is the toll Dichter is trying to prevent, and Yaalon is on the same team. But he is also trying to prevent a more insidious toll. "How can we look in the eyes of our pilots if they kill innocent people?"

And, just as we saw in Lebanon and as the Israelis have seen in other battles (such as the 2002 battle in Jenin), there is always a danger that targeted killings will kill innocents. And, as was the case in the operation Blumenfeld describes, that can scuttle a whole mission.

In fact, the Israelis are so concerned about the possibility of killing innocents that they consult with ethicists and have actually taken what sounds like an absurd step of engaging a mathematician to calculate how many civilian casualties in such an operation would morally acceptable. (Maybe not so absurd, a colleague of mine explained. Isn't that what the Environmental Protection Agency does when it calculates many illnesses are acceptable versus the benefits of allowing a certain agent to be released into the environment? And doesn't the FDA do the same with drugs? I dunno, it's just hard to fathom quantifying a moral idea. And, by the way, according to Blumenfeld, "the mathematician whom the military had enlisted had failed to produce a formula.")

What's more the fail safes Israel puts in place to insure it is targeting the right person are formidable, and, as the article points out, they can scrub an operation at the last minute.

I see no evidence that Israel’s adversaries have taken any steps to fight in anything in the neighborhood of a just manner. Indeed, instead of trying to avoid innocents, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have deliberately targeted them.

This is not to say that killing is ever a purely morally just practice, even if all the ethicists in the world can argue that there are times it is. I'm glad it is not my job to carry out this practice of targeted killing, and it leaves all of us, even those of us who root on a government that practices it, a little sullied.

Still, I don’t see that Israel has much better options considering what it is up against, and I’m glad to see (and not surprised) that it doesn’t take its responsibility to wage war lightly.

Copyright restrictions don't allow me to share the entire column here, but Rabbi Rudin has some tough criticisms and concludes that the Pastoral letter "removes Thomas from playing any constructive role in achieving Middle East peace."

JOHN WATERBURY, the president of American University of Beirut, argues on today's Washington Post Op-Ed page that Israel's "distinct preference for the status quo, founded on conventional
military superiority over all its neighbors and some strategic depth
through its retaining the occupied territories" is the essential source of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It all began, he says, "at the end of formal combat in 1967, [when] Moshe Dayan declared 'mission accomplished.'"

By Waterbury's lights, I guess, the "mission" was the subjugation and colonization of poor Arab peoples by Israel.

Never mind that on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War the armies of those Arab peoples had massed on Israel's borders and were calling for the extinction of the Jewish state.

Never mind that the doctrine of pushing the Jews into the sea remains clear and present even today among Islamic militant groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and many others, not to mention wonderful guys like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, who has been unambiguous about this.

Never mind that, as far as Israel is concerned, the "mission" has never been about asserting its hegemony across the Middle East but about survival, which is what Moshe Dayan and his Army accomplished in 1967. It has always been about being left alone to thrive on its own small patch of earth. Good relations between Arabs and Jews would be nice, but even the most idealistic doves in Israel would settle for disengagement and peace.

I find it ironic that Waterbury would invoke the term "status quo" because for years I have heard Israelis from the left to the right of the spectrum repeat this mantra: "The status quo is untenable." That's to say, 'Israel's occupation of Gaza and all of the West Bank will undermine Israel's own future well being.' Now, it's fair to say that both the left and the right in Israel (and their supporters in the diaspora) had very different views about how to break away from the status quo, and I personally believe that the right wing was at times disingenuous about their willingness to do so.

I also find it startling that someone so close to the scene as Waterbury can conclude the conflict is all the fault of the Israelis. Even the unilateral withdrawal by Israel from Gaza and Southern Lebanon is, to Waterbury, a suspicious act!

It is yet more startling that Waterbury would tacitly say, by omission, that voraciously ambitious and morally corrupt terror groups, which deliberately put at risk the very people they claim to be fighting for, bear no responsibility at all. Not even the Saudis would agree with him.